Things We Saw Today: DC’s Newly Gay Character Looks Like Someone We’ve Met Before

Go Giants! Winter is Coming.

WOOOOOOT! My Pats fan friends are soooo upset about this, you have no idea.

Keller was in the army. Scott is the Green Lantern. Green is a color associated with both.

Does anyone else think that DC’s “central” gay character being a member of the earth 2 universe being kind of a cop out?  Like, it’s not the ACTUAL Green Lantern, it’s the “other” Green Lantern.

Am I alone in this?  Am I just being a glass-half-empty Gary?

As far as I know, it’s all New-52. None of the characters are the “actual” characters anymore so it really doesn’t matter which one comes out of the reboot playing for a different team.

I’d say they picked one of the worst possible characters to reveal as gay.  There’s the Earth-2 thing.  There’s the fact that they already did a gayness storyline with Alan Scott, when his son Obsidian came out of the closet.

But also… does this version of Alan Scott have a wife and kids?  Because if so, that would make his marriage a sham.  Not good for a Green Lantern, who’s supposed to have great integrity.

A lot of gay men get married and have kids only to come out long after. Sometimes in retirement years. I don’t think it makes his marriage a sham and it would be an interesting story line.

This is why I hate the Earth-2 concept. It’s a complete cop-out. An ephemeral alternate Earth where anything goes and they don’t feel the need to follow any logic or previously established aspects of the character. “Look at our parallel universe where the JSA is young and Green Lantern is gay! Crazy, right?”

I’m all for more gay characters in comics but this feels completely forced and random. There were much better characters to pick to come out of the closet.

If I hadn’t heard the details and someone had told me that a Green Lantern was going to be written as gay, I would have guessed it was Guy Gardner finally coming out.  I mean, tell me he’s not fronting and fronting hard.

DC mentioned that it would be a big iconic character that would come out, and though the code name is iconic, the Golden Age Green Lantern is only iconic for die hard DC fans, or fanboys that have any shred of respect for what came before. It IS a cop out as it will NOT reflect poorly on them overall; because it is a character that is not marketable, and most likely never will be (especially if Geoff Johns maintains Hal Jordan as status quo), overall, DC doesn’t have to worry about too much backlash that might occur if Superboy came out, or Nightwing or Wonder Woman. This brings on another issue, if they are so progressive and diverse at DC Comics, why don’t they have Batman as bisexual, or Superman? Why not make some real sensation by having an iconic hero as transgendered or asexual. DC will argue that they aren’t trying to one up Marvel, or Archie, for that matter, but the fact that the news stories are growing dimmer on their big bad relaunch which failed at getting NEW readers in, and with the controversy (but good publicity) on their sexism and misogynistic views on the female heroes and villains hitting the back burner, they can now try to cause some new buzz — and, it’s working. However, they already have made Alan Scott a joke as there’s been plenty of “ha ha’s” over his weakness being wood and flaming, and they have him saying things like “isn’t it *magical*,” with emphasis on the word “magical” (which may just be a nod to his magic-based abilities, but the fact that at least one blogger mentioned this out of concern … ).

They are less offensive as with their “look everyone we have a ‘lipstick’ lesbian in our midst — she’s hot, she’s Jewish, and she’s a Bat-family character” but to me it’s still offensive because if they wanted to be radical, then they would have simply responded to the question at that Con’ as “we are going to be diversifying our line up of heroes with more people of color, sexual orientation, and so on, and NOT “we have an iconic character who is going to be gay so you can’t say anything against us now!” I’m truly happy that a lead character who is both respected and masculine is gay, but I’m just concerned that it’s for the wrong reasons, and that his character will consist of various stereotypes and tropes (he already seemed aloof and somewhat narcissistic in the first issue).

Furthermore, if they wanted to be progressive, then allow their veteran readers to enjoy their own earth of heroes that I love, not make them into 1990′s extreme characters … have that Alan Scott admits to Obsidian that he’s bi, or have Tim Drake as gay — sure, it may seem like it’s giving outsiders what they want with Batman and Robin being gay, but he’s one Robin, so there’s that. I’m all for new characters that are gay but when a character like Bunker is created with his purple and pink costume with a purple fist, who comes from a place that is translated to be a slang term for penis, it is depressing. 

I truly find that comic books certainly have changed; Archie Comics has greater diversity and depth in some of their stories than those that have always claimed to be something greater. Life With Archie is pretty amazing, but in their regular books we had them not only introduce a character who was gay, they gave him his very own ongoing series, where they have Jughead with a new good friend who is a person of color (and a female who can eat every bit as he can), interracial relationships (which may seem old hat but there are still people out there who are opposed to such things), more diverse cast, and even having “Reversodale” where Archie is female and Betty and Veronica are male, and they made Li’l Jinx grow up and attend a high school that is “real not ideal.” They may still have issues, pun not intended, but overall they are very relevant while ensuring they reach people of all genders and ages. Not to mention they have the Stan Lee imprint, their own upcoming Red Circle (featuring their super heroes) imprint, the long running Sonic the Hedgehog series, and Mega Man. 

DC Comics has ditched “Johnny DC” and has a new slogan of “Comics for Everyone,” yet overall that just isn’t the case. Even if I could be assured that the so-called outing of Green Lantern is a good thing, the whole 1990′s EXTREME sex, violence, and misogyny within their main titles, and the erasure of so much has only made me wish I had never picked up a comic book at all. 

I call monkeyshines!  Main continuity or it didn’t happen!

Seriously, I do think this is kind of a cop-out.  (And yes, he does look a lot like Kevin Keller – if Kevin really let himself go.)

Isn’t the Earth-2 concept simply to give a place for guys like Jay Garrick and Alan Scott to exist.

If Superman and Batman are supposed to be the first heroes of their world, these guys need a world of their own.

Alan Scott is the original green lantern or golden age green lantern if you will. Those space guys are the “other” green lanterns.

I concurr Earth-2 makes a lot more sense than having them be on the same earth.

It is main continuity it’s just not earth-1 and it doesn’t need to be.

Batwoman isn’t a “lipstick lesbian” she’s a marine.

I read that during the reboot they made him considerably younger.  He never got married and didn’t have kids.

That was a quote from the media, if not DC, which they used to describe Kate Kane when the character was first announced. Whoever said it was trying to illustrate that she wasn’t “butch.”

Eh, I still think Earth-2 is kind of a cop-out.  But I will at least give them props for making a gay male character, when it would have easlier to have made the new gay character a lesbian.  I also like that they have a masculine gay male character, when it would have been easy to make him a twink and play him for laughs a la Jack from Will and Grace. 

All in all, I’m MUCH more pleased than not about this.  And my prayers have been answered:  From the time of the first announcement I was hoping “anyone but Plastic Man”!

Right, and it’s not like there’s another Alan Scott. He’s the only one in existence.